ole sarg Loc: south florida

From 1937 to 1950 Wilson Hicks was the photo editor for Life. He never took a picture but he could tell you what made a picture good. The pros use good equipment because the equipment they use has to withstand abuse. They would shoot good stuff with a brownie hawkeye, after all they are pros.

Terry Scott Reed Loc: Reading, PA

It looks like you are on the "upwardly mobile" end of the curve, where it seems like nothing you own has parity with what others are shooting. Photography is one of those checkbook hobbies where people who can afford to buy equipment far beyond their skill levels, and the rest of us look on in envy. Take heart in the old saw: A good photographer with a bad camera will take better pictures than a bad photographer with a good camera. Regarding your equipment, you already have the stuff to get started. As you embellish your kit bag and grow artistically, replace with the best you can afford--you won't regret spending on a pro lens. Today, there is no such thing anymore as a "camera for life," although there once was, amazingly. But there are still "lenses for life."

Leonardo Loc: The Garden of England

'Pro' cameras can offer levels of control that aren't available with 'consumer' level cameras. That is certainly the case with video cameras.

The quality of the final image may not be greatly different, but the creative control you have is enormous. Even if you don't use it. And most people don't/won't use the additional control.

Hypno Loc: Miami

I thought most pros are using the Nikon full frame and some use the D300 (DX) or even the D7000. Maybes ome still use Canon. Just a joke no offense.

JRiddle Loc: San Martin, Ca.

See if this makes sense, having a really expensive hammer won't help you build a better house. It is knowing how to use what you have that will get you to the next level.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I was reading Ansel Adams Camera and Lens book. He said "As for the quality of the lens itself, a simple statelment suffices: Any good anasstigmat lens produced by a reputable company forms images of adequate quality." He goes on to say that for such things as aerial mapping and low light hig end lenses are needed. - Dave

LKincaid Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

Do not listen to those "pros" who cringe. I have looked at a few of your posted photos.......you have a good eye and I find your photos intersting to look at. Do you enjoy what you are doing and do people like your work? That is what is important. :)

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Good question and we will always get folks who state quite correctly how they have taken a nice picture with a cheap or moderately priced lens BUT.... Look at all your professional Canon photographers and see how many do not use a top of the range lens, their expensive glass stands out because of the colour :)

Far better to spend the extra money on the lens as opposed to the camera but you still need a decent camera.

What I am trying to say is get a photographer to use a top of the range body, with a cheap lens on it and then with the same person have them use a cheap priced, middle of the range or even bottom of the range DSLR with a top of the range lens and it WILL out shoot that expensive camera every time. (unless there are extenuating circumstances)

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

In photography, as well as other endeavors, there is a hierarchy among professionals, as well as the tools of their trades. For example, a pianist for the New York Philharmonic and the music teacher at Public School 193 are both professional musicians; One uses a custom Steinway, the other can make do with an old Kimball upright piano. The master chef at a 5 star French Restaurant and the short order cook flipping burgers at the Greasy Spoon Diner and Truck Stop are both professionals. What differs are their skill levels, demands of their customers, as well as the quality of their cooking implements. The same goes true for professional photography. At one extreme, are those working for magazines such as Smithsonian, National Geographic, or Architectural Digest. These Professionals are often faced with demanding situations and their work is looked at by equally demanding viewers. They need the best or close to it. At the other end are Tabloid photographers on assignment for National Enquirer. For them, a bridge camera would be adequate. I doubt the bored housewives reading them would see the difference in a shot of Britney Spears taken with a bridge camera or a large format DSLR, especially considering that they are printed on cheap recycled paper.

steinr98

I have a good friend that started with a 3 M. pixel camera and blew them up quite a bit- He sold more photos then the rest of us put together!! The picture is between your ears!!! not in the camera!!! yes a super $$$ is nice but the photo is still in your head and what you do with the scene!! Nothing wrong with the Rebel- Great camera!! Don't buy cheap lenses- go for the gusto in this area!! The off brand Lenses Are Not as Good!! I don't care what anyone tells you!! There is a difference, especially when you start to blow them up larger!!

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

You all ready have pro quality equipment. Keep shooting. Its the person behind the camera that makes the image and with the equipment you have you are capable of world class work! :thumbup:

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

You don't need good expensive equipment, but you do need good equipment that you know how to use and use effectively.

anotherview Loc: California

No. I've been to weddings where the so-called professional wedding photographer used gear lesser than mine. They know how to make money using their given equipment, or put another way, they understand they can make money without expensive gear.

BTW: My definition of a professional photographer: One who makes money doing photography. Thus, the term "professional" does not necessarily include mastery of photographic technique. Consider also that doing photography for money introduces an economic bias affecting the action of a given photographer. A photographer who does photography for its own sake will never experience this economic bias, and hence will avoid its influence on his work.

You will know you need better photography equipment when you detect the shortcomings of your present gear and believe these shortcomings subtract from your vision of the potential of your photographs.

I agree with buying the best lenses you can afford. Once you've experienced high-quality optics, you will not want to return to a kit lens.

I agree with learning flash photography. Using flash lighting will give you more control of exposure under various conditions, and so will expand your photographic opportunities.

Good luck.

Reichstag in the Morning, Berlin (2012)

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

I'm sorry but a T2i rebel is NOT Pro quality equipment, it is an entry level DSLR pure and simple, doesn't matter how you spin it, it is what it is. That being said knowing how to use your equipment and push it to the limits is what makes you a great photographer.

I use a Canon 40D (old pro-consumer grade DSLR) and a 24-70L (pro level lens). Why? because upgrading glass of the camera body is the way to go in the long run and when purchasing my lens I knew what I needed to be able to get out of it. The 24-70 gives me the reach I want, with low light speed I find the kit lens lacks. Professional photographers know the limits of their equipment and know the how to either work around it or save to get it. (I am not a pro)

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Pro cameras are more durable, not necessarily better!

The Leica iiif was Leica's entry level 35mm. It came with a 50mm f2 lens (a kit lens in today's parlance) I wonder if Eisenstadt knew he was shooting with an entry level camera with a kit lens? I am sure that as soon as someone pointed this out to him that he immediately up graded out of embarrassment and knowing that his talent would improve immensely with a more expensive M Leica!